Aray Donell Levine v. Ricky Ddixon

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Aray Donell Levine’s amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. The recommendation concludes that state-court nunc pro tunc corrections to Levine’s sentence did not restart the federal limitations period and that statutory or equitable exceptions do not excuse the delay. It also recommends denying a certificate of appealability and closing the case.

Holdings

1. Because Levine did not rely on a state-created impediment, a newly recognized retroactive constitutional right, or a later-discovered factual predicate, the one-year limitations period was measured from the date his 2017 judgment became final under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
2. The 2024 and 2025 nunc pro tunc amendments correcting scrivener's errors did not create new judgments and did not restart the federal habeas limitations period.
3. Although properly filed state collateral proceedings tolled the limitations period, the limitations period expired on September 3, 2024, before Levine filed his federal petition on August 7, 2025.
4. Martinez v. Ryan does not provide an exception to AEDPA's statute of limitations or toll the limitations period.
5. A certificate of appealability should be denied because Levine did not make the required showing that reasonable jurists could debate the procedural ruling or the validity of a constitutional claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Levine's amended § 2254 petition was barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether the 2024 and 2025 nunc pro tunc corrections to the written sentence constituted new judgments that restarted the federal habeas limitations period.
3. Whether Levine's reliance on Martinez v. Ryan, prejudice allegations, or other grounds established an exception to the limitations bar or warranted equitable tolling.
4. Whether Levine was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

other